FAQ
Hi

This have been a while since we had the discussions about APC in 5.4
(or in general extensions to move in and out of the Core, but more
about that in another thread).

http://markmail.org/message/4w6lcbunw3qfof3c

I bought this thread up a while back and it had a general approval
feeling among the core guys and those who participate in internal
discussions. So I was wondering if we finally agree on moving APC into
the core, or is it too "late" for that?

As Rasmus has spoken of, then the newly built-in webserver will
greatly help improving the code coverage for APC, while also bringing
some more attention to APC from a developer perspective (other than
those who dwell into pecl/).

--
regards,

Kalle Sommer Nielsen
kalle@php.net

Search Discussions

  • Stas Malyshev at Sep 9, 2011 at 1:07 am
    Hi!
    On 9/8/11 6:04 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
    This have been a while since we had the discussions about APC in 5.4
    (or in general extensions to move in and out of the Core, but more
    about that in another thread).
    Not saying anything specifically about APC, I think it is way too late
    to propose major features for 5.4 when we're days before beta. So if
    it's 5.4, it's not 5.4.0 for sure.

    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Kalle Sommer Nielsen at Sep 9, 2011 at 5:38 pm
    Hi

    2011/9/9 Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>:
    Not saying anything specifically about APC, I think it is way too late to
    propose major features for 5.4 when we're days before beta. So if it's 5.4,
    it's not 5.4.0 for sure.
    Well all in all I won't mind adding it in a "patch" release, much like
    we added the FPM SAPI in 5.3. Like it was raised in the original
    thread, bringing more awareness about an opcode cacher into a standard
    distribution of PHP will benefit us all in the long run.


    --
    regards,

    Kalle Sommer Nielsen
    kalle@php.net
  • Ilia Alshanetsky at Sep 12, 2011 at 12:09 pm
    The agreement to include apc in 5.4 is an old one, unfortunately the
    action of doing was just missed. Also, inclusion of the extension
    won't break any code since it is self contained...
    On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
    Hi!
    On 9/8/11 6:04 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:

    This have been a while since we had the discussions about APC in 5.4
    (or in general extensions to move in and out of the Core, but more
    about that in another thread).
    Not saying anything specifically about APC, I think it is way too late to
    propose major features for 5.4 when we're days before beta. So if it's 5.4,
    it's not 5.4.0 for sure.

    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
  • Stas Malyshev at Sep 12, 2011 at 5:42 pm
    Hi!
    On 9/12/11 5:09 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
    The agreement to include apc in 5.4 is an old one, unfortunately the
    action of doing was just missed. Also, inclusion of the extension
    won't break any code since it is self contained...
    If it's an "old one", how comes nobody ever mentioned it during all the
    extensive process of naming features, voting, etc. and didn't bother to
    propose it?
    I don't feel good about first agreeing to a set of rules and then
    immediately starting to throw them away "just this time, just for this
    occasion". Why have rules and release cycles then?
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Pierre Joye at Sep 12, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
    Hi!
    On 9/12/11 5:09 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

    The agreement to include apc in 5.4 is an old one, unfortunately the
    action of doing was just missed. Also, inclusion of the extension
    won't break any code since it is self contained...
    If it's an "old one", how comes nobody ever mentioned it during all the
    extensive process of naming features, voting, etc. and didn't bother to
    propose it?
    There was a discussion and the conclusion was that APC was not ready
    for inclusion. See my other reply.
    I don't feel good about first agreeing to a set of rules and then
    immediately starting to throw them away "just this time, just for this
    occasion". Why have rules and release cycles then?

    --
    Pierre

    @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
  • Derick Rethans at Sep 13, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

    The agreement to include apc in 5.4 is an old one, unfortunately the
    action of doing was just missed. Also, inclusion of the extension
    won't break any code since it is self contained...
    I also thought that APC was going to part of PHP 5.4. And I agree with
    Ilia that it doesn't matter to the overal stability if we bundle it or
    not. It is self contained code, and having it part of the distribution
    means more people play with it and use it, and problems are found
    earlier. Release early, release often.

    Having to delay APC, or basically any other self-contained bit of code
    (extensions and new functions/classes/methods) for at least a year, and
    perhaps sometimes up to even 2 years, makes very little sense to me. The
    more ticker tape we get, the slower we innovate.

    Of course, it's likely that things will have bugs, but if we mark it as
    "exprimental" in the docs than I see no problems. It makes very little
    sense to not allow any "new" code for a whole new year to filter into
    PHP. It makes developing new exiciting things for PHP a pain as it
    simply sucks to have to wait up to a year and a half for new shiny
    things to appear in PHP.

    Derick
    --
    http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
    Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
    twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
  • Nathaniel Catchpole at Sep 13, 2011 at 3:07 pm
    I didn't closely follow the earlier discussions about including APC, but I
    (and at least some other people working a lot on Drupal) had been mostly
    assuming it'd be included in 5.4 based on those.

    The assumption that APC is available by default (if not necessarily enabled)
    would allow us to start making more assumptions in Drupal as well over time,
    so while I have no stake in the decision, it would not at all be a surprise,
    and it'd be very very welcome. If it came in 5.4.1 or something then that'd
    make no odds though.

    Nat

    On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
    On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

    The agreement to include apc in 5.4 is an old one, unfortunately the
    action of doing was just missed. Also, inclusion of the extension
    won't break any code since it is self contained...
    I also thought that APC was going to part of PHP 5.4. And I agree with
    Ilia that it doesn't matter to the overal stability if we bundle it or
    not. It is self contained code, and having it part of the distribution
    means more people play with it and use it, and problems are found
    earlier. Release early, release often.

    Having to delay APC, or basically any other self-contained bit of code
    (extensions and new functions/classes/methods) for at least a year, and
    perhaps sometimes up to even 2 years, makes very little sense to me. The
    more ticker tape we get, the slower we innovate.

    Of course, it's likely that things will have bugs, but if we mark it as
    "exprimental" in the docs than I see no problems. It makes very little
    sense to not allow any "new" code for a whole new year to filter into
    PHP. It makes developing new exiciting things for PHP a pain as it
    simply sucks to have to wait up to a year and a half for new shiny
    things to appear in PHP.

    Derick
    --
    http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
    Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
    twitter: @derickr and @xdebug

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
  • Johannes Schlüter at Sep 13, 2011 at 2:52 pm
    Hi,
    On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 03:04 +0200, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
    Hi

    This have been a while since we had the discussions about APC in 5.4
    (or in general extensions to move in and out of the Core, but more
    about that in another thread).

    http://markmail.org/message/4w6lcbunw3qfof3c
    I think the conclusion was that we should include it (that's btw. a
    thought since the beginning of PHP 6) but anytime it was discussed it
    was premature.


    In general I'd tend to drop stuff from PHP instead of adding it. We ship
    quite a few extensions where I claim that we don't do any testing and
    little maintenance. I would reduce the distribution size and include
    things we consider "core PHP" and enable these by default in the hope
    that gives developers a clear guidance and what they should be able to
    expect. (hoping we can convince distributors to have the same things in
    their "PHP" meta packages) But that's nothing for 5.4 but for 5.5.
    Anybody wants to write an RFC by chance? :-)

    johannes
  • Lester Caine at Sep 13, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    Johannes Schlüter wrote:
    In general I'd tend to drop stuff from PHP instead of adding it. We ship
    quite a few extensions where I claim that we don't do any testing and
    little maintenance. I would reduce the distribution size and include
    things we consider "core PHP" and enable these by default in the hope
    that gives developers a clear guidance and what they should be able to
    expect. (hoping we can convince distributors to have the same things in
    their "PHP" meta packages) But that's nothing for 5.4 but for 5.5.
    Anybody wants to write an RFC by chance?:-)
    Since most of the linux distributors already strip the extra packages and ship
    them self contained in their own packages it IS about time that the
    non-essential extensions were kept separate from the core, so a move to a more
    modular management system is overdue? We can then simply select what we want to
    include with the core rather than the current method of simply ignoring the
    unused extensions?

    APC is optional ... like many other extensions ... so only needs to be supplied
    as an option anyway.

    --
    Lester Caine - G8HFL
    -----------------------------
    Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
    L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
    EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
    Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
    Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupphp-internals @
categoriesphp
postedSep 9, '11 at 1:04a
activeSep 13, '11 at 3:32p
posts10
users8
websitephp.net

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase